Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:It would be cheaper for everyone.... (Score 1) 107

Not as simple as saying that 'everyone' is all people. What is 'all people'? All Chinese residents? All people on this planet? All people that are paying taxes and who will actually be force to pay for this, or is it maybe all consumers of the goods that will have higher prices on them (and likely fewer choices of products) due to these 'heavy restrictions'?

Does 'everyone' include those, who are still in poverty in China (plenty more people are still very poor) and who want to move up in class but who will be prevented if prices for everything go up due to all the new regulations, licensing, taxes and generally growth of government that 'heavy restrictions' assumes?

It's not as simple as saying 'continue reducing pollution in the air'. In the USA when Lyndon Johnson came out with the 'Great Society' crap the level of poverty was very low and falling, then the government stepped in and reversed that trend categorically. The free market was working towards reducing poverty, there was no need for anything called 'Great Society' (and as always, there is no truth in advertising that comes from government, less truth in government advertising than in any other).

Free market capitalism works towards improving the standard of living of the market participants, but a poor economy cannot fix pollution, only a wealthy economy can and you do not make an economy into a wealthy one with 'heavy restrictions'.

Poor economies do not let people even to get their heads up, never mind thinking about such rich problems as not burning coal but instead going nuclear. Interestingly enough, while China is burning plenty of coal (so does USA) but China is building up nuclear power plant capacity and USA is not.

China will fix its pollution by following free market capitalist principles of searching for cheaper sources of energy and nuclear will be the cheapest source.

"Less then the medical cost, and loss of habitat costs." - how living a life of poverty, does not count as a cost to a society? I say it does. A life of poverty doesn't help you with medical costs and habitat costs either.

Why should polluter be allowed to force their pollution on others for free?

- nothing is free, people are paying for the energy, food, water and all other products that they consume and the prices that they pay reflect the economy they are in. By adding 'heavy restrictions' to the economy you are not helping to fix anything, you are ensuring that the economy will be poorer than it could otherwise and thus preventing the fixes, not promoting them.

Ironically, China is moving to greener solutions faster the the US is.

- it is not ironic at all, USA is destroying its economy with all the government and destruction of individual freedoms and China allows individual freedoms and mostly free market capitalism to work its way towards prosperity, which is crucial to having pollution free environment.

Comment: Re:It would be cheaper for everyone.... (Score 1) 107

It would be cheaper for everyone to just fix the pollution problem by putting heavy restrictions on emissions.

- take a look at what you wrote. This sentence is self-contradictory and at best you just didn't understand it.

It would be 'cheaper for everyone' to 'fix pollution' by putting 'heavy restrictions'.

Ok, who is 'everyone', what does it mean to 'fix pollution' and how much do 'heavy restrictions' cost to everyone?

This guy put together a 'low cost solution for everyone' who wants to 'fix pollution' and he didn't force any 'heavy restrictions' on anybody either. So anybody who is actually worried about the pollution can now pay for it to be fixed for themselves.

Now, of-course this doesn't fix overall pollution, but it is a distributed method of fixing pollution locally on a voluntary basis that is provided by free market capitalism (private property ownership and operation without government interference).

As a society progresses from pre-industrial (China before 1970s) to industrial (the last 40 years) its residents become wealthier and more affluent and as they become wealthier and more affluent they can now afford to start thinking about their environment and the best way to fix environment is to allow free market enterprise to market the fixes straight to the public, which then will decide whether it wants to pay anything at all (or more or less) for any such fixes, be it fixes on large scale or small distributed local fixes like this one.

To put 'heavy restrictions on emissions' means to restrict wealth generation in the country that was able to move 350,000,000 people out of poverty over the last 40 years (while the rest of the globe has been moving hundreds of millions into poverty by destroying individual freedom and thus destroying capitalism, destroying the free market).

China will be fine, it will fix its environmental problems and it will do so without advice from the economic failures that scold it here.

Comment: Re:sure, works for France (Score 1) 293

Expanding fiat currency leads to economic reduction, stagnation and often collapse, history is on my side, you don't have anything on yours. 1971 - the year of default on the US dollar was the beginning of the end of USA economy, since then the productivity has been shrinking, deficits and debts growing, government growing and individual freedoms shrinking at an increasing rate.

That's one example, obviously there are thousands, including USSR, Weimar Republic and at least 30 examples of countries destroying their currency that way in only the last 100 years.

As to whether any amount of inflation of fiat currency is bad, yes, theft and thus misallocation of resources from those who produce to those who do not produce in the free market (not enough to be compensated for it by more than what the stolen or inflated currency allowed) is not good by any stretch of imagination, unless you have your head stuck all the way up into your ass.

Comment: Firewall != Windows Firewall (Score 1) 333

You said they disabled the local firewall. That's how I'd run most Windows servers on a network of any size, because the local firewall just eats up resources on the server that could be better used for the server's actual job. The firewalls should be proper hardware firewalls built into the networking infrastructure located a) between the outside world and the client networks to control access to the network in general, b) between the POS terminal segment and the server segment to control what access the terminals have to the servers and to block the servers from unnecessary access back to the POS terminals, and c) between the two client networks you mention to control what access each client has to the other's network.

The Windows Firewall itself is fairly useless in a large network because as far as incoming connections go it can't control things any better than a hardware firewall can, and for outgoing connections it's pointless because any malware that might try making unwanted outbound connections has to be assumed to have enough access to disable or bypass the Windows Firewall.

Comment: Re:Tower Systems (Score 2, Informative) 333

I build and supply retail chain management systems and part of the platform is a store management system, which communicates with POS machines (in most cases via a share). So our solution to what you are describing (a common problem with POS systems) is to put our store management system on a Linux machine that has 2 network cards in it, one is the Internet connection and the other is LAN, this Linux machine runs the store management system and it becomes local network manager and a firewall.

The POS machines are on the LAN only, no Internet connection for them, the store management system connects to the retail management system that is external to the store (controls the entire chain). This way we can avoid this huge security breach.

Comment: common or not, it's not prudent (Score 0) 333

Well, whether this practice is common or not is probably irrelevant, it is still not a prudent thing to do.

I build and supply retail chain management software to a number of chains, there are dozens of stores that use it, we switch at least one computer in a store to a Linux machine that runs the store management software (the chain management software is a central system and it doesn't run in a store, but all stores talk to it.)

Store management system is on the Linux machine that faces the Internet, it has 2 network cards, one is the Internet and the other is LAN (the same machine controls the LAN). Since this is Linux, iptables is used to filter out any unnecessary traffic.

I think there should be some sort of packet filter on Internet facing equipment, POS or anything else.

Comment: Re:sure, works for France (Score 1) 293

Nonsense, inflation is expansion of money supply, nothing else. Rising prices (or prices that are failing to fall) can be a result of inflation. Inflation changes the size of the measurement units of the economy, value of the currency. Inflation does not improve economy in any way, it destroys the economy both by destroying value of savings and rising prices of real savings, thus denying access to capital for productive purposes and pushing up nominal prices of assets, creating asset bubbles, making it look like economy is growing (faking the GDP), while in reality the economy stays the same (or shrinks), only the units change.

You are using this in an Orwellian fashion to confuse the population on the causes of inflation and its effects.

Comment: Re:The American Dream (Score -1, Flamebait) 551

by roman_mir (#47563067) Attached to: 35% of American Adults Have Debt 'In Collections'

Socialism is fascism. Socialists want to control companies and companies fight back and buy political power, but the only reason political power can be bought is because socialists allow government to usurp all that power.

The reason for all this debt is lack of productivity and substitution of a real economy with a fake one.

    Americans are an extremely unproductive bunch, living at the expense of the productive Chinese and others, printing money and 'buying' products created by others that they themselves do not produce, thus the 500 Billion USD/year trade deficits for a couple of decades now.

Inflation is rampant, of-course the publicly 'educated' children do not understand what inflation is or why it is bad and they revolt at that thought.

"I got everybody to pay up front...then I blew up their planet." "Now why didn't I think of that?" -- Post Bros. Comics

Working...